Will JJ+Josh+Horford make it to the all star game

[Admin]

Yup. Now tell me how factoring in defensive stats alters my analysis of Antoine Walker versus Jamison/Pierce in 2005 or Lopez versus Horford this year. Because I can't see any defensive stat other than blocks per game that indicates Lopez has anything on Horford. And even factoring in defensive stats, Walker still put up better numbers than Pierce and Jamison.

So as I said, I'll wait. Or maybe you're willing to qualify your initial statement about the importance of "All-Star numbers."

Your comparison of Antoine Walker being deserving of making the All-Star team as compared to Brook Lopez being deserving of making the All-Star team is what I'm saying is ridiculous seeing that Walker was an offensive only player and Lopez plays on both ends of the floor.

And in case you missed it I never said that Horford isn't deserving of being an All-Star this year, I simply said that Lopez is MORE deserving.

[niremetal]

Your comparison of Antoine Walker being deserving of making the All-Star team as compared to Brook Lopez being deserving of making the All-Star team is what I'm saying is ridiculous seeing that Walker was an offensive only player and Lopez plays on both ends of the floor.

And in case you missed it I never said that Horford isn't deserving of being an All-Star this year, I simply said that Lopez is MORE deserving.

But you said All-Star numbers were the important thing. Whatever happened to that? On the numbers, Walker bested Pierce and Jamison. That's true regardless of whether you factor defensive stats in or not. So what makes Horford versus Lopez different? Obviously, it's something OTHER THAN THE STATS that makes you say that Walker didn't deserve an All-Star spot over Jamison and Pierce.

My argument is: There were factors beyond the stats that made Pierce and Jamison more deserving as All-Stars than Walker. Just as I think there are factors beyond the stats that make Horford more deserving than Lopez.

You're just too proud to admit that you overstated your case when you harped about "All-Star numbers." Just admit that your statement I initially quoted was an overstatement - admit that the stats aren't decisive by themselves. Admit that, and I'll shut up. But my guess is you won't admit that, because if you admit that you have to look beyond the stats to decide who deserves to be an All-Star, that'll undercut your reasoning for why Lopez should be picked over Horford.

[Admin]

But you said All-Star numbers were the important thing. Whatever happened to that? On the numbers, Walker bested Pierce and Jamison. That's true regardless of whether you factor defensive stats in or not. So what makes Horford versus Lopez different? Obviously, it's something OTHER THAN THE STATS that makes you say that Walker didn't deserve an All-Star spot over Jamison and Pierce.

My argument is: There were factors beyond the stats that made Pierce and Jamison more deserving as All-Stars than Walker. Just as I think there are factors beyond the stats that make Horford more deserving than Lopez.

You're just too proud to admit that you overstated your case when you harped about "All-Star numbers." Just admit that your statement I initially quoted was an overstatement - admit that the stats aren't decisive by themselves. Admit that, and I'll shut up. But my guess is you won't admit that, because if you admit that you have to look beyond the stats to decide who deserves to be an All-Star, that'll undercut your reasoning for why Lopez should be picked over Horford.

All-Star numbers are the important thing in judging whether a player should be in the All-Star game. And you know what, Brook Lopez has All-Star numbers and in my eyes should be an All-Star because of them. I think Horford has borderline All-Star numbers but they're not as good as those of Lopez and I believe if the players switched teams it would still turn out that way.

But just to end this I will play along with your 2004-2005 Walker vs Pierce comparison as to All-Star validity.

http://www.basketbal.../walkean02.html

http://www.basketbal.../piercpa01.html

Points: Pierce 21.6 > Walker 19.1

FG%: Pierce .455 > Walker .422

FT%: Pierce .822 > Walker .539

3PT%: Pierce .370 > Walker .323 (PF is expected to shoot a poorer percentage)

Rebounds: Walker 9.0 > Pierce 6.6 (PF is expected to have more rebounds)

Blocks: Walker 0.8 (58 total) > Pierce 0.5 (39 total)

http://insider.espn....er?playerId=881

http://insider.espn....er?playerId=662

TS%: Pierce 58.3 > Walker 47.8

PER: Pierce 21.83 > Walker 15.5

Clearly Pierce was vastly superior nearly across the board to Walker in 2004-2005 and would have deserved the be an All-Star over Walker.

So now that your argument that Walker was statistically superior to Pierce has been blown out of the water what will you come up with next?

[AHF]

Do you know specifically that is why his scoring has dropped? Without looking it up I'd say that it's just as likely and perhaps more likely that he is getting fewer touches and that's a failure in coaching and from his All-Star PG to not get him the ball more. From what I've seen he's head and shoulders better than any center in the east, except for Howard, at scoring in the paint and has a variety of ways to score down there and if they fail to maintain his touches when other guys come back from the injured list then you can't blame him you have to blame his coach and PG.

It is a function of offensive touches. He went from being one of two players to get as many touches as they wanted offensively to one of three players getting fed the ball with the return of Yi who is averaging 16 points per game. Put Lopez on a team with other successful players and he gets fewer touches than on a team with nothing to win and fewer offensive options. I am not sure we disagree on this. My point is that the lack of depth on the Nets roster boosts his stats above what you would expect from him on a team with more options (ala Horford).

Sothron - It is not Lopez's fault that the rest of the team consists of an All-Star PG, a scoring forward, and filler It does speak to how much he moves the needle on his team's success that his team can't win even with 2 All-Stars (if you view Lopez as one).

Let's look at some other numbers. Holy crap!! After looking at the on/off the court numbers, I am totally in Al's corner on this.

Lopez's team is 3.2 points worse per 100 possessions when he is on the floor than when he is off

Al's team is 17.8 points better per 100 possession

Combine those and Al's net on/off court contribution is a full 21 points better per 100 possessions than Lopez. :cant believe: Wow! That shocks me with how high that number is.

Lopez has a net +1.4 PER as compared to his opponent counterpart

Al has a net +23.5 PER as compared to his PF opponent counterparts and a +5.8 PER relative to his C opponent counterparts

Again, that means Al is dominating his opponents (the same ones at the C position that Lopez plays) by a much larger margin than Lopez.

Go to hawksfanatic's preferred metric and you see an edge for Al yet again:

Al Win Shares = 5.1

Lopez Win Shares = 3.6

Forget my earlier posts. I am all in Al's corner now. Lopez should not be considered for the All-Star team this year whether based on team success or based on individual contributions to the team.

Edited January 13, 2010 by AHF

[niremetal]

All-Star numbers are the important thing in judging whether a player should be in the All-Star game. And you know what, Brook Lopez has All-Star numbers and in my eyes should be an All-Star because of them. I think Horford has borderline All-Star numbers but they're not as good as those of Lopez and I believe if the players switched teams it would still turn out that way.

But just to end this I will play along with your 2004-2005 Walker vs Pierce comparison as to All-Star validity.

http://www.basketbal.../walkean02.html

http://www.basketbal.../piercpa01.html

Points: Pierce 21.6 > Walker 19.1

FG%: Pierce .455 > Walker .422

FT%: Pierce .822 > Walker .539

3PT%: Pierce .370 > Walker .323 (PF is expected to shoot a poorer percentage)

Rebounds: Walker 9.0 > Pierce 6.6 (PF is expected to have more rebounds)

Blocks: Walker 0.8 (58 total) > Pierce 0.5 (39 total)

http://insider.espn....er?playerId=881

http://insider.espn....er?playerId=662

TS%: Pierce 58.3 > Walker 47.8

PER: Pierce 21.83 > Walker 15.5

Clearly Pierce was vastly superior nearly across the board to Walker in 2004-2005 and would have deserved the be an All-Star over Walker.

So now that your argument that Walker was statistically superior to Pierce has been blown out of the water what will you come up with next?

You're factoring in Walker's stats from after he was traded from Atlanta to Boston, not his stats at the time of the break. And you conveniently ignored Jamison. Nice try.

Oh, and while you're at it, do the same breakdown of efficiency stats for Horford and Lopez. I'll wait.

You're picking and choosing what you think is important to bolster your argument.

Edited January 13, 2010 by niremetal

[Admin]

It is a function of offensive touches. He went from being one of two players to get as many touches as they wanted offensively to one of three players getting fed the ball with the return of Yi who is averaging 16 points per game. Put Lopez on a team with other successful players and he gets fewer touches than on a team with nothing to win and fewer offensive options. I am not sure we disagree on this. My point is that the lack of depth on the Nets roster boosts his stats above what you would expect from him on a team with more options (ala Horford).

Lopez's team is 3.2 points worse per 100 possessions when he is on the floor than when he is off

Al's team is 17.8 points better per 100 possession

Combine those and Al's net on/off court contribution is a full 21 points better per 100 possessions than Lopez. Wow! That shocks me with how high that number is.

Lopez has a net +1.4 PER as compared to his opponent counterpart

Al has a net +23.5 PER as compared to his PF opponent counterparts and a +5.8 PER relative to his C opponent counterparts

I agree that if a player on a bad team has fewer touches than a player on a good team that the player on the bad team is likely to put up superior stats, assuming that they're comparable players of course. My argument is that you've got to make it a point to keep getting Lopez the same number of touches as long as the player or players coming off of injury aren't better players than him and I don't believe that Yi or anyone else other than Harris are better than Lopez on his team but it's probably natural that even with the best of intentions the number of touches for Lopez will drop a little.

Unless I really don't understand this stat, I'm not sure that you can really evaluate the player based on how the team does per 100 possessions with the player on and off the court unless you're only removing them from the game and leaving the other 4 from the starting unit out there. It's possible that NJ makes more wholesale changes to their lineup and when Lopez comes out more starters also come out compared to Horford and the Hawks, meaning that when Horford's replacement comes in he's playing with the starters. Please correct me if I understand that stat wrong though.

The PER differential is a bit of a surprise to me, especially Al at PF.

[Admin]

You're factoring in Walker's stats from after he was traded from Atlanta to Boston, not his stats at the time of the break. Nice try.

I'm factoring in the total stats for the year for them both as that is the only fair way to do it since there isn't a line for what their stats were at the All-Star break, but hey nice attempt at coming up with an excuse for why you were wrong.

[niremetal]

I'm factoring in the total stats for the year for them both as that is the only fair way to do it since there isn't a line for what their stats were at the All-Star break, but hey nice attempt at coming up with an excuse for why you were wrong.

Look at their player pages on ESPN. Click on "Splits." Select the season. Look at "Pre All-Star." And then respond to my edited post.

And I admit that Pierce was more efficient than Walker. Just like Horford is more efficient than Lopez.

Hell, I'll even concede that Pierce had better stats than Walker that year. I have no problem with that. I also would point out that Walker's efficiency stats ALL went up and total stats ALL went down after he was traded from (13-69) Atlanta to (45-37) Boston. I would also point out that it's funny how you used Pierce instead of Jamison, with whom the call with Walker based on stats is much closer. In any case, I was just trying to find an example of a broader point - people's stats are much different when they play for winners then they are when they play for losers. So you can't ignore the record of the team they are on, nor can you ignore the intangibles that a player brings to the floor.

But hey nice attempt at continuing to refuse to back down from your clearly overstated comment about numbers determining All-Star status. You're either too proud to admit that stats aren't the end-all be-all, or you're a fool for thinking that they actually are. Either way, I'm done with you.

Edited January 13, 2010 by niremetal

[Admin]

Look at their player pages on ESPN. Click on "Splits." Select the season. Look at "Pre All-Star." And then respond to my edited post.

And I admit that Pierce was more efficient than Walker. Just like Horford is more efficient than Lopez.

Hell, I'll even concede that Pierce had better stats than Walker that year. I have no problem with that. I also would point out that Walker's efficiency stats ALL went up and total stats ALL went down after he was traded from (13-69) Atlanta to (45-37) Boston. I would also point out that it's funny how you used Pierce instead of Jamison, with whom the call with Walker based on stats is much closer. In any case, I was just trying to find an example of a broader point - people's stats are much different when they play for winners then they are when they play for losers. So you can't ignore the record of the team they are on, nor can you ignore the intangibles that a player brings to the floor.

But hey nice attempt at continuing to refuse to back down from your clearly overstated comment about numbers determining All-Star status. You're either too proud to admit that stats aren't the end-all be-all, or you're a fool for thinking that they actually are. Either way, I'm done with you.

Show me ANYWHERE IN THIS THREAD where I said "stats are the end-all be-all" in determining All-Star status. If you can find that I will make you an honorary Hawksquawk Supporter for life and gladly admit that I was wrong and you were right, otherwise you can reply to this by saying that you were wrong and that you based your entire argument off of an assumption that you made.

[Sothron]

It is a function of offensive touches. He went from being one of two players to get as many touches as they wanted offensively to one of three players getting fed the ball with the return of Yi who is averaging 16 points per game. Put Lopez on a team with other successful players and he gets fewer touches than on a team with nothing to win and fewer offensive options. I am not sure we disagree on this. My point is that the lack of depth on the Nets roster boosts his stats above what you would expect from him on a team with more options (ala Horford).

Sothron - It is not Lopez's fault that the rest of the team consists of an All-Star PG, a scoring forward, and filler It does speak to how much he moves the needle on his team's success that his team can't win even with 2 All-Stars (if you view Lopez as one).

Let's look at some other numbers. Holy crap!! After looking at the on/off the court numbers, I am totally in Al's corner on this.

Lopez's team is 3.2 points worse per 100 possessions when he is on the floor than when he is off

Al's team is 17.8 points better per 100 possession

Combine those and Al's net on/off court contribution is a full 21 points better per 100 possessions than Lopez. :cant believe: Wow! That shocks me with how high that number is.

Lopez has a net +1.4 PER as compared to his opponent counterpart

Al has a net +23.5 PER as compared to his PF opponent counterparts and a +5.8 PER relative to his C opponent counterparts

Again, that means Al is dominating his opponents (the same ones at the C position that Lopez plays) by a much larger margin than Lopez.

Go to hawksfanatic's preferred metric and you see an edge for Al yet again:

Al Win Shares = 5.1

Lopez Win Shares = 3.6

Forget my earlier posts. I am all in Al's corner now. Lopez should not be considered for the All-Star team this year whether based on team success or based on individual contributions to the team.

This is the part of the show where I point out I don't believe, at all, in Sabrematrics and these kind of kooky stats mean nothing to me. Any player stuck on a bad team is going to have worse +/- than players on better teams. Horford, defensively, can not hold his own well against true centers while Lopez can.

[Admin]

This is the part of the show where I point out I don't believe, at all, in Sabrematrics and these kind of kooky stats mean nothing to me. Any player stuck on a bad team is going to have worse +/- than players on better teams. Horford, defensively, can not hold his own well against true centers while Lopez can.

I'm also not convinced of the team +/- statistics but AHF did prove that Horford has a significantly higher PER +/- against centers than Lopez does which I'd say proves that he's holding his own against true centers.

[Sothron]

I'm also not convinced of the team +/- statistics but AHF did prove that Horford has a significantly higher PER +/- against centers than Lopez does which I'd say proves that he's holding his own against true centers.

We watch the same guys play with the teammates around both of them. Who would you rather want guarding the best centers in the NBA in crunch time, Horford or Lopez? I know who I would pick between and its not even that close.

[coachx]

We watch the same guys play with the teammates around both of them. Who would you rather want guarding the best centers in the NBA in crunch time, Horford or Lopez? I know who I would pick between and its not even that close.

Easy...........Horford of course.

The only part of Lopez's game that is better then Horford is post offense and that is b/c he is the #1 option on a 3 W - 34 L team.

Put Horford on that team and his numbers would probably be better then Lopez's numbers.

[niremetal]

Show me ANYWHERE IN THIS THREAD where I said "stats are the end-all be-all" in determining All-Star status. If you can find that I will make you an honorary Hawksquawk Supporter for life and gladly admit that I was wrong and you were right, otherwise you can reply to this by saying that you were wrong and that you based your entire argument off of an assumption that you made.

I was being snide when I said "end-all be-all." You said "As far as their record goes that shouldn't have anything to do with it, this is the ALL-STAR game, not the MVP voting, and he's clearly put up All-Star numbers and should be in the All-Star game."

In other words, you said the team's record is irrelevant, and you said that he should be in the game based on his stats (and I'll note that you have not yet conceded that ANYTHING besides stats should go into it). For the past 2565656 posts, I have been trying to bait you into conceding that the All-Star game selections should not be based on stats alone. You have responded by cherrypicking parts of my posts to respond to instead of responding to my main point: That stats alone should not determine who makes the All-Star team.

Are you, at long last, conceding that stats alone should not determine who makes the All-Star team? If so, then I'll shut up - as I said I would awhile ago. If you're not...well, then I guess you are saying that stats are the be-all and end-all.

So clear that up and answer this simple question: Should All-Star game selections be based on more than just a player's stats?

And NOW I'm done.

Edited January 13, 2010 by niremetal

[AHF]

Any player stuck on a bad team is going to have worse +/- than players on better teams. Horford, defensively, can not hold his own well against true centers while Lopez can.

I agree they are not a be-all, end-all stat but remember that Yi Jianlin has a +7.9 on/off court differential for NJ.

More to the point:

We watch the same guys play with the teammates around both of them. Who would you rather want guarding the best centers in the NBA in crunch time, Horford or Lopez? I know who I would pick between and its not even that close.

How do you reject the fact that opposing centers put up a 15.5 PER against Horford and a 21.8 PER against Lopez?

That is a pretty huge difference. Per 48 minutes against centers, Brook Lopez gives up 21.1 points and 13.9 rebounds. Per 48 minutes against centers, Horford gives up 16 points and 12.8 rebounds.

There is a strong case to be made that Horford is having the better season on his individual merits - especially defensively.

[Admin]

How do you reject the fact that opposing centers put up a 15.5 PER against Horford and a 21.8 PER against Lopez?

That is a pretty huge difference. Per 48 minutes against centers, Brook Lopez gives up 21.1 points and 13.9 rebounds. Per 48 minutes against centers, Horford gives up 16 points and 12.8 rebounds.

There is a strong case to be made that Horford is having the better season on his individual merits - especially defensively.

That doesn't automatically mean that Horford is that much better against centers than Lopez is and without being able to swap the players and see them on the other team it's difficult to really judge them because of other factors, such as Horford having a mistake eraser like Josh Smith next to him, as well as the switching defense that we play which makes it a little more difficult to assess but if you only look at those numbers without considering anything else then Horford certainly looks like the better player, and he may very well be, but in their head to head match up's Lopez has been slightly better at scoring and they're roughly equal in rebounding.

11/14/08

Lopez 25/9 in 34 minutes

Horford 6/11 in 35 minutes

11/15/08

Lopez 5/7 in 28 minutes

Horford 12/6 in 39 minutes

1/02/09

Lopez 7/11 in 37 minutes

Horford 10/8 in 32 minutes

1/30/09

Horford Didn't play

12/13/09

Lopez 19/12 in 38 minutes

Horford 16/9 in 27 minutes

01/06/10

Lopez 12/8 in 34 minutes

Horford 8/10 in 27 minutes

----

Totals

Lopez 68/47 in 171 minutes

Horford 52/44 in 160 minutes

Per48

Lopez 19/13

Horford 16/13

[exodus]

I think JJ is a lock. His 3 pt percentage is up to 37% now. He is putting up better numbers than he did the last two seasons when he made it.

Smith and Horford are very iffy. Smiths rebounding and offense have fallen off quite a bit. Horford's lack of competition certainly helps him but he has been frequently quiet against tough competition. He puts up big numbers against teams like Indy, NY and Toronto but against other teams he hasn't done much offensively.

One of them has a chance to sneak in but i wouldn't be surprised if neither made it.

[Crank]

I think JJ is a lock. His 3 pt percentage is up to 37% now. He is putting up better numbers than he did the last two seasons when he made it.

Smith and Horford are very iffy. Smiths rebounding and offense have fallen off quite a bit. Horford's lack of competition certainly helps him but he has been frequently quiet against tough competition. He puts up big numbers against teams like Indy, NY and Toronto but against other teams he hasn't done much offensively.

One of them has a chance to sneak in but i wouldn't be surprised if neither made it.

I agree thats why I feel we have to get into second place in the conference for them to have a chance .

I dont feel Lopez deserves to be mentioned as his numbers are about as hollow as you can get . I cant recall a Center putting up numbers like that and yet having absolutely no impact on the game . He is the beneficiary of being on a bad team with no identity . I recall even Eddy Curry dominated several years ago and helped the knicks to a better record than the one the Nets are on pace for. Al imo opinion has a huge edge .

[jerrywest]

I agree thats why I feel we have to get into second place in the conference for them to have a chance .

Looking at the schedules of the elite 4, it is likely that Hawks will be 3rd in the East & will be leading the SE division when the players will be chosen.

Boston will get 3 players regardless. I hope they overtake the Cavs so that Cavs won't cry about Mo and more.

If the loses don't seal Lozez's all star fate, the +/- stats should do that. I didn't know Nets have better +/- when Lopez is off the floor. Wow!

JJ will be the first reserve guard chosen, and when AI will sit out, JJ will be asked to start.

The talent difference between the East and West is mindblowing. West has at least 10 players who wouldn't make the West AS team but would have made the East AS team.

Top 12

Melo/Dirk/Durant/Duncan/Kobe/Roy/Nash/McGrady/Paul/Amar/Bunum/Gasol

These guys had a good chance to make the East team:

DWill

Billup

Brooks

Ellis

Evans

Parker

Ginobilli

Davis

Boozer

Kaman

Randolph

Gay

West

Aldridge

[spotatl]

I don't think three is any chance that Iverson decides to sit out. Nor should he- if the fans want to see him that bad then he should play.